| Revision as of 20:27, 25 January 2007 editSmee (talk | contribs)28,728 edits Divisions are appropriate. Too often individuals comment in wrong place.← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:58, 25 January 2007 edit undoJustanother (talk | contribs)9,266 edits There is only one RfC and I left the divisions in place just cleaned it up.Next edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| <!--<nowiki>Add new items here at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | <!--<nowiki>Add new items here at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | ||
| *] - Is there supporting evidence in reputable sources to classify the term "cult apologist" as inherently pejorative, or simply descriptive? 20:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC). | *] - Is there supporting evidence in reputable sources to classify the term "cult apologist" as inherently pejorative, or simply descriptive? 20:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC). | ||
| *]: - Should material that is sourced from a peer-reviewed study in a respectable journal be deleted on the basis of ]? 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | *]: - Should material that is sourced from a peer-reviewed study in a respectable journal be deleted on the basis of ]? 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:58, 25 January 2007
Shortcut- ]
- Talk:Cult apologist#Request for Comment: Cult apologist term - Is there supporting evidence in reputable sources to classify the term "cult apologist" as inherently pejorative, or simply descriptive? 20:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
- Transcendental Meditation: - Should material that is sourced from a peer-reviewed study in a respectable journal be deleted on the basis of WP:FRINGE? 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages Naming conventions (identity) - I have started an RfC on the usage of the term Barbarian at wikipedia HERE. - WeniWidiWiki 19:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem#Request_for_comment Current dispute over inclusion of some quotes sourced to various sources. 22:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Islam#For_Request_for_Comment Dispute over inclusion of a quote from Watt about sincerety of Muhammad. --09:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Nun#Request_for_Comment_2 This is a dispute about whether all the OED definitions -- including "courtesan" -- should be listed on this page. 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Religious_antisemitism#RfC:_Are_.22Religious_Antisemitism.22_and_.22Anti-Judaism.22_the_same_thing.3F Should anti-Judaism be characterized in the lead as another word for "religious antisemitism," or should a distinction be recognized? 17:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Philosophy There are disputes concerning the introduction of this article, especially the role of rationality, the East, and proper sourcing. All sections from this past December onward are relevant. 18:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Jesus#How_the_topic_should_be_introduced Should the article be focused toward Christianity or should the focus be different (is there a fundamental POV issue)? Seeking input through a straw poll in the discussion page. 03:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions#RFCSingle editor insisting on reverting or rewritng the same information into the intro regardless of input from other editors.18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Someone please comment so I don't have to rfd to get attention20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Zakir Naik Ongoing dispute among pro-Naik and anti-Naik POV-pushers. Article has been multi-tagged for a long time with few secondary reliable sources and is essentially a triumphantly pro-Naik and religiously extremist POV article. Many well-intentioned editors have given and left due to frustration regarding the POV-pushers in this article.05:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Person#Request for Comment: persons v. people Changing of 'persons to 'people' and 'personhood' to 'being a person' throughout, making the article all but useless. Emeraude 11:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Ebionites#Reason for adding totally disputed tag Should the article on Ancient Ebionites include a short, explanatory sentence clearly describing their angelology according to the fullest primary source, Epiphanius' account in Panarion? Or, should this account of their angelology "not be discussed" at all in the article other than the briefest mention, since modern-day "revivalist Ebionite" groups and authors dispute Epiphanius' reliability on this question? 09:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also see Talk:Ebionites#Neutrality Dispute?, Talk:Ebionites#Origen on Ebionites' supposed heresy, and Talk:Ebionites#A way forward to understand the full context of the dispute. Ovadyah 16:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Template talk:Philosophy navigation Is Ayn Rand a philosopher? This affect many entries on wikipedia and is endlessly debated on many discussion pages. THis may be the first movement towards a general policy on her. 07:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Jews_for_Jesus#Request_for_Comment Should the view that JfJ is "incompatible with Judaism" (with which JfJ disagrees) be presented as factually true or a majority opinion? Seraphimblade 01:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:pseudoreligion: How should the article on pseudoreligion properly cite an essay that includes feminism and "PCism" as pseudoreligions? 13:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:List of groups referred to as cults: Should a list of purported cults published by the Parliamentary Commission about Cults in France, be placed in that article, in the article List of groups referred to as cults, or in both locations? 23:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)